This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on remand from
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
National Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, 986 F.2d 537 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (NTEU
v. FLRA). At issue in this case is the interpretation and application of
sections 7116(a)(1) and (3) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute (the Statute).

The Authority previously ruled that the Social Security Administration
(SSA or Agency) did not commit an unfair labor practice (ULP) when it denied
the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) a permit to distribute literature
on the outdoor areas of the Agency's headquarters complex. Social Security
Administration and National Treasury Employees Union and American Federation of
Government Employees, 45 FLRA 303 (1992) (Social Security Administration). In
its remand, the court directed the Authority to take into account the
constitutional ramifications of alternative interpretations of the Statute.
Additionally, the court remanded for the Authority to determine, in order to
avoid uncertain constitutional implications, whether the public areas in
question are SSA's "facilities" for the purpose of section 7116(a)(3) because
this determination could affect whether SSA was acting as an employer or a
building manager for the General Services Administration (GSA) in this case.
NTEU v. FLRA, 986 F.2d at 540.

On further consideration of this matter, we modify the Authority's
interpretation of an employing agency's obligations under section 7116(a)(3)
and conclude, for the reasons explained below, that SSA did not violate section
7116(a)(3) of the Statute. We further conclude, for reasons explained below,
that SSA did not violate section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute in denying NTEU the
permit sought in this case. (2)Because of the conclusions we reach
herein, it is not necessary to resolve the facilities question posed by the
court.

II. Background

A. Facts

The facts, established by two stipulations and set out fully in the
Authority's previous decision (Social Security Administration, 45 FLRA at
304-06), are summarized briefly herein. The American Federation of Government
Employees (AFGE) is the exclusive representative of a nationwide unit for SSA
employees. Although these bargaining unit employees are dispersed at
approximately 1300 sites across the country, 9,000 bargaining unit employees
are located at SSA's headquarters facility at Woodlawn, Maryland
(Woodlawn).

The SSA headquarters complex at Woodlawn consists of office buildings,
parking lots, lawns, and pedestrian sidewalks that offer access to the
buildings. The Woodlawn facility is operated jointly by SSA and GSA pursuant to
a delegation agreement between GSA and the Department of Health and Human
Services. The sidewalks surrounding Woodlawn's office buildings are considered
public areas for the purposes of the Federal Property Management Regulations
(FPMRs); however, persons or organizations desiring to use these public areas
must obtain a permit to do so. 41 C.F.R. 101-20.401. Under the delegation
agreement, SSA is responsible for administering the permit process.

In May 1991, SSA denied an NTEU organizer, who was not an SSA employee,
a permit to distribute literature on the sidewalks of the Woodlawn facility.
SSA also denied NTEU's appeal of the Agency's refusal to issue a permit.
Between November 1989 and April 1991, SSA had granted permits to distribute
various information and materials on the Woodlawn sidewalks to the Disabled
American Veterans, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Little Sisters of the
Poor, and the American Legion. The record does not indicate whether any other
organizations sought permits from SSA.

B. Litigation of the Access Issue

NTEU challenged SSA's refusal to issue a permit in two forums. First,
NTEU filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia alleging that SSA's refusal to permit the distribution of literature
violated NTEU's First Amendment right to free speech. Second, NTEU filed the
ULP charge which formed the basis of the instant case alleging that in denying
the permit, SSA both unlawfully assisted AFGE in violation of section
7116(a)(3) and discriminated against NTEU in violation of section 7116(a)(1).

On appeal, the D.C. Circuit remanded the case and ordered that it be
maintained on the district court's docket until June 30, 1992, or the date when
the Authority issued its decision in the unfair labor practice proceeding,
whichever came first. At that time, NTEU could renew its motions for relief in
the district court. King I, 961 F.2d at 245.

After the Authority issued its decision in Social Security
Administration, on June 22, 1992, dismissing the ULP complaint, the district
court proceeding was reinstituted. The district court found that the sidewalks
at Woodlawn constituted a "public forum" and that SSA had violated NTEU's First
Amendment rights by denying access to those areas. NTEU v. King, 798 F. Supp.
780 (D.D.C. 1992) (King II).

AFGE, intervenor in the case, appealed to the D.C. Circuit. (NTEU v.
King, No. 92-5272). That case, argued on the same day and before the same panel
as NTEU v. FLRA, remains pending.

2. The ULP Allegations Against SSA

a. The Authority's Determination on the ULP

The Authority concluded that SSA did not violate sections 7116(a)(1) or
(3) of the Statute when it denied NTEU access to the Woodlawn complex and,
therefore, dismissed the ULP complaint. Social Sec. Admin., 45 FLRA at 304.

The Authority found that, had SSA granted NTEU's request for permission
to distribute literature in Woodlawn's "public areas," it would have violated
section 7116(a)(3) by unlawfully assisting NTEU. Id. at 320. In making this
determination, the Authority concluded that, when a rival union lacking
"equivalent status" 3/ requests access to an "agency's facilities" for the
purpose of organizing employees, the agency unlawfully assists the rival union
within the meaning of section 7116(a)(3) of the Statute if the agency grants
such access. Id. at 315. Central to the Authority's reasoning was the finding
that SSA, as a result of the delegation from GSA, exercised control over access
to the public areas at the Woodlawn facility. Id. at 317-18.

The General Counsel and NTEU argued that NTEU should have been granted
access to the Woodlawn public areas despite its lack of equivalent status
because it was unable to reach the SSA's employees through alternative means of
communication. Acknowledging that this was an exception to the general rule
prohibiting access to a union lacking equivalent status, the Authority
concluded nonetheless that NTEU had failed to show that the SSA employees were
inaccessible outside of the Agency's premises. Id. at 320.

The Authority also rejected the contention that SSA discriminatorily
applied its permit policy in violation of section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute.
Id. at 323. Noting its conclusion that SSA would have violated section
7116(a)(3) of the Statute if it had granted NTEU access, the Authority held
that, in this case, the Statute mandated that NTEU's non-employee organizers be
treated differently than the non-labor organizations to which SSA had granted
access. Id. Accordingly, the Authority concluded that there had been no illegal
discrimination.

b. The D.C. Circuit's Review of the Authority's Decision

In NTEU v. FLRA, the court found that by interpreting section 7116(a)(3)
as a bar to SSA permitting NTEU to distribute literature on the sidewalks of
the Woodlawn complex, the Authority had drawn the constitutionality of that
section "seriously into question." 986 F.2d at 539. In this regard, the court
referenced the district court's finding in King II (also on appeal) that the
sidewalks are a "public forum" and that SSA had abridged NTEU's First Amendment
right of free speech. Id. (citing King II, 798 F. Supp. at 788).

The court directed the Authority to "consider the constitutional
implications of its choice between permissible interpretations of the Statute."
Id. The court further stated that, although an agency is not obliged to adopt
an interpretation that avoids a constitutional issue, the consequences of
adopting one of several reasonable interpretations without regard to the
constitutional question presented could be "most untoward." Id. at 540.

Finally, the court noted that the outside areas at Woodlawn, which SSA
administers pursuant to the delegation order from GSA but does not lease for
its own purposes, may not constitute "[SSA's] facilities" within the scope of
section 7116(a)(3). Id. at 540. According to the court, if these areas are not
SSA's facilities, then SSA would presumably not be liable under the Statute
because it would not be acting as employer, but rather as "GSA's building
manager." Id. The court remanded the case to the Authority to determine whether
Woodlawn's "public areas" are "[SSA's] facilities" for the purposes of that
section of the Statute.

III. Positions of the Parties

Subsequent to the court's remand, the parties were given the opportunity
to present their views in both briefs and an oral argument before the
Authority. (4) The positions of the parties are as
follows.

A. General Counsel

Counsel for the General Counsel (hereinafter, General Counsel) urges the
Authority to reverse its earlier determination and find that public areas which
SSA administers as GSA's building manager are not "facilities" within the scope
of section 7116(a)(3). Further, and in response to the Authority's Notice of
Oral Argument, the General Counsel contends that the provision in section
7116(a)(3), which permits agencies to furnish customary and routine services
and facilities on an impartial basis to labor organizations of equivalent
status, constitutes an exception to the section's more general prohibition on
sponsorship, control, or assistance to labor organizations. In the General
Counsel's view, denying a permit to NTEU "assisted" AFGE in violation of
section 7116(a)(3).

With respect to the section 7116(a)(1) charge, the General Counsel
asserts that SSA discriminated against NTEU and that SSA's employees have a
right to receive information about NTEU.

B. NTEU

NTEU first argues that the Authority's construction of section
7116(a)(3) in Social Sec. Admin. raises significant constitutional issues,
referencing the district court's determination that SSA violated NTEU's First
Amendment rights by denying it a permit to distribute leaflets on the
sidewalks.

Second, NTEU contends that the public areas at issue are not leased to
SSA for its own use, but rather SSA administers these areas as GSA's
representative. Accordingly, NTEU asserts that SSA is required to administer
these areas as GSA would, in accordance with the applicable FPMRs. NTEU
concludes that these areas should not be considered SSA's facilities.

Third, NTEU argues that denying rival unions access to public areas does
not serve section 7116(a)(3)'s purpose of assuring agency neutrality and
preventing interference in employees' choice of their bargaining
representative. NTEU contends that the portion of section 7116(a)(3) that
refers to the furnishing of routine services and facilities to unions of
equivalent status is an exception to the prohibition on assistance. According
to NTEU, that proviso does not create an obligation to furnish such services
and facilities, but only makes it clear that there is no prohibition against
doing so.

Last, NTEU asserts that discriminating against a labor organization, as
compared to other organizations and members of the public, violates section
7116(a)(1) of the Statute.

C. AFGE

AFGE argues that there is no support for finding that the public areas
are not "SSA's facilities" under section 7116(a)(3). In this regard, AFGE
points out that a distinction has never been drawn between internal and
external features of an agency's premises. AFGE further contends that it is the
extent of an agency's control that determines whether the area is the agency's
facility and that SSA exercises considerable control over access to the public
areas in question.

Because the Woodlawn public areas are the Agency's facilities, AFGE
asserts that the Authority should reaffirm its determination that had SSA
granted a permit to NTEU, SSA would have violated section 7116(a)(3). In
response to the Authority's Notice of Oral Argument, AFGE asserted that section
7116(a)(3) requires agencies to provide rival unions with equivalent status
routine and customary services and facilities provided the incumbent union.

SSA asserts that in denying NTEU a permit, it was acting as an employer
in a collective bargaining relationship and not simply as a building manager
for GSA. Accordingly, providing NTEU such access to its facilities would have
violated section 7116(a)(3). SSA asserts that the furnishing of services and
facilities is an exception to the statutory bar on sponsorship, control, and
assistance, but contends that an agency is only required to furnish "customary
and routine services and facilities" to unions with equivalent status.

SSA argues that section 7116(a)(1) does not cover NTEU's non-employee
organizers. As a result, in denying NTEU access, SSA did not violate section
7116(a)(1).

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

A. Introduction

The court's remand requires the Authority to examine, within the context
of this case, the meaning and purpose of section 7116(a)(3) of the Statute. In
conducting this analysis, we start with the wording of section 7116(a)(3),
trace its evolution, review administrative and judicial precedent interpreting
both this section and its predecessor under Executive Order 11491, and set out
what we believe to be the meaning and purpose of the section. As a result of
this examination, we establish a revised analytical framework for evaluating
cases arising under section 7116(a)(3). In applying this framework, we conclude
that SSA did not violate section 7116(a)(3) as alleged in the complaint.

We then review the purpose and meaning of section 7116(a)(1) in the
context of non-employee organizers being denied access to agency premises and
establish an analytical framework for evaluating such cases. Having adopted
this framework, we apply it and conclude that SSA did not violate section
7116(a)(1) in this case.

B. Section 7116(a)(3) of the Statute Prohibits an Agency from
Sponsoring, Controlling, or Assisting a Labor Organization

1. The Terms and Origin of Section 7116(a)(3)

Resolution of the meaning of a statutory provision "begins where all
such inquiries must begin: with the language of the statute itself." United
States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241 (1989) (citation
omitted). Section 7116(a)(3) of the Statute makes it a ULP for an agency:

to sponsor, control, or otherwise assist any labor organization, other
than to furnish, upon request, customary and routine services and facilities if
the services and facilities are also furnished on an impartial basis to other
labor organizations having equivalent status. . . .

As plainly worded, section 7116(a)(3) expresses both a broad prohibition
and an exception thereto: first, it prohibits specified improper relationships
between agencies and labor organizations; and second, it clarifies that the
furnishing of routine services and facilities under certain circumstances is
not included within the broad prohibition.

The legislative history pertaining to section 7116(a)(3) sheds little
light on what Congress intended. In this regard, there is only a brief example,
in the House Report, of permissible assistance under the section -- "providing
equal bulletin board space to two labor organizations which will be on the
ballot in an exclusive representation election[.]" H.R. Rep. No. 1403, 95th
Cong., 2d Sess. 49 (1978), reprinted in Subcomm. on Postal Personnel and
Modernization of the Comm. on Post Office and Civil Service, 96th Cong., 1st
Sess., Legislative History of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute, Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, at 695. Consistent
with this example, affording equal treatment to two unions in an election
context would not equate to sponsorship, control, or assistance.

The language enacted by Congress is patterned after Section 19(a)(3) of
Executive Order 11491 (1969) (the Order), which governed federal sector labor
relations prior to the passage of the Statute. (5)Under section
19(a)(3), it was an unfair labor practice for an agency:

to sponsor, control, or otherwise assist a labor organization, except
that an agency may furnish customary and routine services and facilities under
section 23[ (6)] of this Order when consistent with
the best interests of the agency, its employees, and the organization and when
the services and facilities are furnished, if requested, on an impartial basis
to organizations having equivalent status[ (7) ]. . . .

Interpretations of this provision have played a significant role in
establishing how section 7116(a)(3) has come to be understood.

2. Administrative and Judicial Precedent under the Executive Order and
the Statute

A decision of the Assistant Secretary for Labor Management Relations
(ASLMR) interpreting Section 19(a)(3) of the Order led to the Authority's
construction of section 7116(a)(3) in Social Security Administration as an
absolute bar to allowing rival unions lacking equivalent status access to
agency facilities. In justifying his decision in Department of the Army, U.S.
Army Natick Laboratories, Natick, Mass., 3 A/SLMR 194 (1973) (Natick), the
ASLMR utilized broad language to explain the result reached. This language,
quoted below, has been applied by the Authority to address situations different
from those presented in Natick; additionally, this language has been cited with
approval by both the Authority and the United States of Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit.

a. Interpretations of Section 19(a)(3) of the Executive Order

In Natick, three non-employee representatives of AFGE were allowed
access to an agency's premises for the purpose of conducting an organizational
campaign. At the time, the agency was negotiating a new agreement with its
exclusive representative, a local of the National Association of Government
Employees. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that section 19(a)(3)
of the Order did not prohibit the agency from allowing access to rival unions
lacking equivalent status so long as the agency did not display favoritism
toward either union. In the ALJ's view, by granting temporary access on terms
equivalent to the incumbent, the agency did not, in and of itself, sponsor,
control, or assist. 3 A/SLMR at 206.

On review, the ASLMR disagreed, concluding that absent equivalent
status, an agency may not furnish a rival with the use of its services and
facilities. "To hold otherwise would . . . grant to an agency or activity the
power to pick and choose the particular rival labor organization it desires to
unseat an incumbent." Id. at 196. In making this statement, the ASLMR did not
address whether the prohibition against sponsorship, control, or assistance, or
the proviso in section 19(a)(3) (requiring the furnishing of facilities on an
impartial basis) could operate to prevent such partiality by an agency.

The ASLMR also noted that an agency could jeopardize the stability of
labor-management relations by "using as leverage in the bargaining relationship
the power to permit representatives of a rival labor organization on its
premises at any time." Id. In raising this concern, the ASLMR did not analyze
whether such agency conduct would otherwise be an unfair labor practice for, by
example, failing to negotiate in good faith as required by sections 19(a)(6)
and 11(a) of the Order.

The ASLMR went on to note, however, that under section 19(a)(3) of the
Order, such non-employee representatives may be furnished agency facilities or
services "where it can be established that the employees involved are
inaccessible to reasonable attempts by the labor organization to communicate
with them outside the agency's or activity's premises." Id. This limited
exception was premised upon section 1(a) of the Order which was the forerunner
of section 7102 of the Statute, and protected, inter alia, the rights of
employees to "form, join, or assist a labor organization, or to refrain from
any such activity. . . ." Id.

The Natick rationale was only once subjected to direct review by the
Federal Labor Relations Council (FLRC). (8)Department of the Air Force, Grissom
Air Force Base, Peru, Indiana and Local 1434, NFFE and Local 3254, AFGE, 6 FLRC
407 (1978) (Grissom). In Grissom, the agency had not taken steps to prevent the
publication of a paid advertisement by a rival union in a newspaper over which,
although privately owned and published, the agency exercised some control. 6
FLRC at 408. The ASLMR found that the paper was, in effect, "an instrumentality
of [the base]," and ruled that a ULP had occurred. Local 3254, American
Federation of Government Employees, 7 A/SLMR 486, 487 (1977).

The Council reversed. Rejecting the approach followed by the ASLMR, the
Council found that the agency management took no affirmative action in the case
and therefore had not offered improper assistance or control in violation of
the Order in this case. In reaching the conclusion that the ASLMR's finding was
inconsistent with the history and purposes of section 19(a)(3), the Council
concluded that:

Section 19(a)(3) was clearly intended . . . to prevent agency
management from dominating or controlling a labor organization by contributing
financial or other support to it and to preserve the independence of such
organizations from agency manipulation.

Grissom, 6 FLRC at 411-12.

b. The Authority's Interpretation of Section 7116(a)(3) of the Statute

Prior to the Authority's consideration of the case now before us (Social
Sec. Admin.), the Authority had not directly considered an unfair labor
practice case where a rival, lacking equivalent status, sought and was denied
access to agency facilities. (9) However, in a limited number of
cases, the Authority has considered the issue of access to agency premises.

For example, the Authority addressed an agency's obligations under the
Statute when a rival union sought to solicit on GSA-owned public areas adjacent
to the agency's premises. In Department of Health and Human Serv., Health Care
Financing Admin. and American Federation of Government Employees and National
Treasury Employee's Union, 24 FLRA 672, 676 (1986) (HHS), the Authority
analyzed whether the agency had exercised control over such public areas. Where
GSA had control over the public space, the Authority determined that the agency
had no obligation to prohibit the rival union, lacking equivalent status, from
entering the agency's public areas. (10)

Shortly after Social Sec. Admin., in U.S. Department of the Air Force,
Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier City, Louisiana and NFFE, Local 1953, 45 FLRA
659 (1992) (Barksdale Air Force Base), the Authority was presented with another
case where an agency had granted a rival union, lacking equivalent status,
access to its premises for the purpose of conducting an organizational
campaign. However, in concluding that the agency had violated section
7116(a)(3), the only issue considered by the Authority in that case involved
the adequacy of alternative methods of communication available to the rival
union. Id. at 665.

In sum, a review of Authority precedent reveals that it was not until
Social Sec. Admin. that the Authority directly applied the Natick rationale to
conclude that an agency properly denied access to agency premises to a rival
labor organization lacking equivalent status because section 7116(a)(3)
prohibits an agency from granting such access.

c. Judicial Review Involving Section 7116(a)(3)

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
has quoted the Natick rationale in several cases. However, the court has not
specifically considered whether the Natick approach would, in circumstances
other than those where the employees are otherwise inaccessible, prohibit an
agency from granting access to its routine facilities and services to a rival
union lacking equivalent status.

For example, the court has cited Natick and noted that the law was
settled, under both the Executive Order and the Statute, "that an agency
generally may not provide access to or use of its facilities to any labor
organization without equivalent status.'" American Federaton of Government
Employees v. FLRA, 793 F.2d 333, 336-37 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (AFGE I). However,
whether an agency could, in light of section 7116(a)(3) ever permit such
access, was not at issue in that case: The court stated in this respect that it
was "undisputed that, under the circumstances presented, the Agency could not
lawfully permit use of or grant access to the nonpublic areas of its facilities
to any union other than AFGE, the exclusive representative of its employees."
Id. at 334 (emphasis added). (11)

In NTEU v. FLRA, wherein the court reviewed the Authority's decision in
Social Security Administration, the Natick decision was referenced but not
specifically analyzed. The D.C. Circuit quoted from the language of AFGE I:
"[B]ut for the question of GSA involvement, there would be no doubt that
permitting [a rival union lacking equivalent status] into the [public areas] in
question (whether or not into the actual work areas) would constitute unlawful
assistance." NTEU v. FLRA, 986 F.2d at 540, (quoting AFGE I, 793 F.2d at
337).

On the other hand, the D.C. Circuit has also indicated its agreement
with the rationale articulated by the FLRC in Grissom: "[T]he provision
[section 7116(a)(3)] is aimed primarily at preventing agency domination of
unions and preserving the bargaining representative's independence . . . .
[citation to Grissom omitted]. Like its analogue in private sector labor law,
8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(2) (1982), it is
directed at the problem of company unions.'" AFGE II, 840 F.2d at 955-56.

Thus, like the Authority, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has
cited the Natick decision; however, the Court has always presumed, without
specifically addressing and deciding, that an agency would violate section
7116(a)(3) of the Statute if it allowed a rival union, lacking equivalent
status, access to its customary and routine services and facilities.

The wording and structure of section 7116(a)(3), the Executive Order
provision from which it evolved, as well as administrative and judicial
precedent discussing both provisions, lead us to conclude, in agreement with
the FLRC and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, that the purpose of section 7116(a)(3) is contained in the first
clause of the section -- agencies may not sponsor, control, or assist labor
organizations. This fundamental objective guides our interpretation of this
section.

The second clause of section 7116(a)(3) helps to define the meaning of
sponsorship, control, and assistance and to prevent overbroad and impractical
interpretations of the first phrase of the section. For example, standing
alone, the first clause of the section could be construed to prevent an agency
from providing even a de minimis routine service or facility to a labor
organization. However, the potential for such a sweeping and unwieldy
interpretation is avoided by the second clause of the section, which permits
agencies to furnish routine services and facilities to labor organizations,
even if the provision of such services and facilities would otherwise
constitute sponsorship, control, and assistance, so long as the services and
facilities in question are furnished on an impartial basis to other labor
organizations having equivalent status. The second clause of section 7116(a)(3)
thus limits the reach of the first and specifically excepts certain activities
from the potentially broad prohibitions of the first, or, as the FLRC
concluded, it "is a proviso to the otherwise absolute ban." Grissom, 6 FLRC at
411 n.8. Read as a whole, section 7116(a)(3) prohibits sponsorship, control,
and assistance, but permits the furnishing of customary and routine services
and facilities on an impartial basis to labor organizations having equivalent
status.

Having concluded that section 7116(a)(3) prohibits sponsorship, control,
and assistance, while allowing the furnishing of customary and routine services
on an impartial basis, we herein establish a revised framework for analyzing
cases arising under this section. In adopting this framework, we first
establish the central question that must be analyzed in section 7116(a)(3)
cases and then set out and discuss the sources we have considered in forming
our view of sponsorship, control, and assistance under the Statute. Finally, we
summarize the framework we adopt and briefly describe an agency's obligations
under section 7116(a)(3).

We recognize that the revised framework for evaluating cases arising
under section 7116(a)(3) which we adopt today is, in some respects, a departure
from the manner in which the broad Natick language was interpreted in Social
Security Administration. We also appreciate that in other cases, previously
cited in this decision, the broad Natick language has been applied by the
Authority and cited by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit. However, the inflexible Natick approach, as applied and
interpreted in Social Security Administration, is practically unworkable in
certain circumstances and fails to contemplate the potential for constitutional
challenges such as have arisen in the case before us. As a result we are
obliged to revisit and revise how section 7116(a)(3) cases should be analyzed.
Having done so, we believe, for the reasons explained below, that unlike the
broad and rigid Natick approach, this revised interpretation is squarely in
accord with the terminology, purpose, and meaning of section 7116(a)(3). We
also find that this approach will best effectuate the purposes of the
Statute.

a. Central Question to be Analyzed

The proper central question in section 7116(a)(3) cases is whether the
agency action -- in this case the denial of access to agency premises --
sponsored, controlled, or assisted a labor organization. The analytical
approach employed in Social Security Administration, which asks only whether a
labor organization has equivalent status, is flawed because it ignores the
primary purpose of section 7116(a)(3) by failing to analyze whether the agency
has sponsored, controlled, or assisted a labor organization. The Social
Security Administration approach applies a per se rule that granting access to
a rival lacking equivalent status always equates to sponsorship, control, or
assistance. Such an approach inverts the section by allowing the exception to
the broad prohibition to define an agency's obligations under the Statute.
(12)

Revising and stating the central question in this way means that we
will no longer construe the second clause of section 7116(a)(3) as absolutely
defining the limits of what an agency is permitted to do vis-a-vis its services
and facilities. As a result, an agency will not be automatically obliged by the
Authority's interpretation of section 7116(a)(3) to require as a condition to
furnishing routine services and facilities, including access to agency
premises, that a rival labor organization have obtained equivalent status to an
incumbent, (13)without regard to whether the
provision of such services and facilities, in and of itself, sponsors,
controls, or assists a labor organization.

b. Sources that Define and Explain Sponsorship, Control and
Assistance

Our view of what constitutes sponsorship, control, and assistance is
informed by several sources and considerations. First, we look to and examine
an analogous provision of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as well as
the applicable precedent interpreting this provision. However, in analyzing
private sector law, we note several important distinctions concerning the
context in which private and federal sector cases have arisen. We also consider
precedent developed under the Statute and the Executive Order as well as the
language of the proviso. Lastly, we take into account the interrelationship
between section 7116(a)(3) and section 7116(a)(1).

(1) Section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA

As noted earlier, the primary purpose of both section 7116(a)(3) of the
Statute and section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA is to prevent "company unionism." AFGE
II, 840 F.2d at 955-56; see also, e.g., Remarks of Senator Wagner, reprinted in
1 Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act, 1935, at 15-16
(1949). However, in attacking the same evil, the statutes use somewhat
different language. Section 7116(a)(3) proscribes sponsorship, control or
assistance, while section 8(a)(2) makes it illegal:

to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any
labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it. . .
.

Despite this difference in phraseology, the prohibitions in section
8(a)(2) are comparable with the proscriptions in section 7116(a)(3) of the
Statute. Specifically, both statutes forbid an employer's unduly influencing a
labor organization: section 8(a)(2) by use of the word "domination," and
section 7116(a)(3) through the word "control." Similarly, both statutes
prohibit an employer from improperly supporting and fostering a labor
organization: section 8(a)(2) through phrases that outlaw "interfer[ing] with
the formation or administration . . . [and] contribut[ing] financial or other
support" and section 7116(a)(3) by use of the terms "sponsor" and "assist."

Finding that the purposes and prohibitions of the two sections are
analogous, we will consider judicial and administrative precedent interpreting
section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA in construing section 7116(a)(3)'s prohibition
against sponsorship, control, or assistance. In this regard, we note that the
Supreme Court has determined that, in evaluating allegations of improper
employer activity under section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA, the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) is to examine the totality of circumstances
(International Association of Machinists, etc. v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 72, 80 (1940))
in determining whether the employer's action has interfered with employee
freedom of choice (NLRB v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U.S. 584, 588 (1941)). Bearing in
mind that the purpose of both section 8(a)(2) and section 7116(a)(3) is to
prevent "company unions" and to preserve the bargaining unit representative's
independence, we find the Supreme Court's guidance in section 8(a)(2) cases
appropriate for analyzing allegations of sponsorship, control, and assistance
under section 7116(a)(3). Accordingly, we will be examining whether, in the
totality of circumstances, the employer interfered with employee freedom of
choice by failing to maintain a proper arms-length relationship with the labor
organization involved. Like the Board, we will avoid applying a per se approach
to the use of employer property and will decide each case on the totality of
its facts. Coamo Knitting Mills, Inc., 150 NLRB 579, 582 (1964).

(2) Federal Sector Considerations

Although considering private sector precedent to illuminate our
interpretation of sponsorship, control, and assistance, we bear in mind an
important distinction between the cases decided by the NLRB and those that have
come before the Authority and its predecessor in the federal sector. The
private sector standard was developed and has been most often applied in the
context of an organizational campaign where there is no exclusive
representative. Unlike the private sector, the federal experience in this and
previous cases (Natick, Grissom, HHS, Gallup Indian Medical Center, Barksdale
Air Force Base, etc.) has almost always involved an attempt by a rival labor
organization to unseat an incumbent that has already organized the workforce in
question. There are, on the one hand, inherent and concrete benefits to
incumbency, and, on the other, disadvantages to being a rival. These
distinctions are not indicative of whether the agency has maintained the proper
arms-length relationship with its employees' exclusive representative. For
example, the incumbent, as a result of its status, already has access to the
agency's premises and an established relationship with the agency. Moreover,
the incumbent has an opportunity through collective bargaining to obtain other
advantages (e.g., union offices, bulletin board space, use of agency mail
systems, etc.) that a rival, regardless of equivalent status, will not have
attained. (14) In our view, section 7116(a)(3)'s
prohibition on sponsorship, control, and assistance is not designed to provide
a rival labor organization, lacking equivalent status, the benefits that an
incumbent has obtained as a result of both its status and its collective
bargaining as the exclusive representative. Accordingly, our consideration of
private sector precedent should not be read to suggest that an agency is
obliged to grant access to a rival labor organization lacking equivalent status
lest the agency be sanctioned for failing to maintain the proper arms-length
relationship with its incumbent. (15)

On the contrary, should an agency, whose employees are already
represented, allow access to a rival labor organization lacking equivalent
status, we would closely examine whether the agency had maintained the
appropriate arms-length relationship with the rival. However, having in this
decision revised the broad Natick rule to accommodate a constitutional problem
not envisioned by the ASLMR, we do not believe it prudent to broadly pronounce
in this case that any agency grant of access to a rival lacking equivalent
status will necessarily equate to sponsorship, control, or assistance. Instead,
in establishing a revised framework, we set out specific instances of when
grants of access to rivals lacking equivalent status will be permitted and, for
other cases, offer guidance as to how we will evaluate sponsorship, control, or
assistance. See sections IV.B.4.a., b.(1),(3), and (4). Rather than prejudge
cases perhaps premised upon factual scenarios we have not here envisioned, we
leave for another day the determination of whether an agency, whose employees
are already represented and who grants access to a rival labor organization
lacking equivalent status, has sponsored, controlled, or assisted that labor
organization and thus violated section 7116(a)(3).

(3) Precedent and the Proviso

Consistent with the precedent of the FLRC, the Authority, and the Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, it is evident that an agency does not sponsor,
control, or assist a labor organization that gains access to services or
facilities over which an agency does not exercise control. In other words,
lacking control, an agency is not obliged to take affirmative steps to deny
such access. See Grissom, HHS, and AFGE II. In addition, consistent with Natick
and as further developed below, an agency does not sponsor, control, or assist
in violation of the section 7116(a)(3) where it grants access to a rival
lacking equivalent status that has no other means of communicating with the
agency's employees outside of the agency's premises. 3 A/SLMR at 196. The
Authority has adopted this rule as well. See Social Security Administration;
Barksdale Air Force Base. (16)16/

The proviso to section 7116(a)(3) further helps to define the meaning of
sponsorship, control, or assistance. For example, if an agency were to grant a
labor organization, other than the exclusive representative, access to services
and facilities that were not routinely granted to others, this might well be
indicative of sponsorship, control, or assistance. (17)

Finally, in defining sponsorship, control, or assistance, it is
appropriate in our view to reconsider the interrelationship between section
7116(a)(3) and section 7116(a)(1). The Authority has noted the "tension between
section 7116(a)(3) and section 7116(a)(1)." Social Security Administration, 45
FLRA at 324. However, in holding that SSA was obliged to deny NTEU access to
its premises because to do otherwise would violate section 7116(a)(3), the
Authority previously concluded that section 7116(a)(3), in effect, trumped
section 7116(a)(1). See Social Security Administration, 45 FLRA at 323. As
developed in section C., infra, pursuant to section 7116(a)(1), an agency is
required, vis-a-vis non-employee solicitation on its premises, to consider the
availability of other means of communication and to maintain a
non-discrimination policy.

The Authority's previous construction of the interrelation between these
two provisions in the Statute failed to address constitutional problems such as
those that confronted the Respondent in this case. In addition, it ignored that
the underpinning of the Natick exception was premised upon the employees' right
to form, join, or assist a labor organization, which is effectuated through
section 7116(a)(1). See note 23, infra. Accordingly, we reassess the interplay
between these sections of the Statute in light of our view of the purpose of
section 7116(a)(3) as developed above and section 7116(a)(1) as developed
infra. We conclude that section 7116(a)(3)'s ban on assistance is not violated
by action required to comply with section 7116(a)(1)'s prohibition on
discrimination and right to communication. Specifically, an agency that grants
access to its services or facilities to a labor organization lacking equivalent
status, because to do otherwise would require it to violate section 7116(a)(1),
does not, ipso facto, violate section 7116(a)(3) of the Statute. Conversely,
where denial of access violates section 7116(a)(1), the agency's violation will
not be excused on the ground that granting access would have violated section
7116(a)(3).

c. Framework Summary

If an agency is charged with violating section 7116(a)(3) by granting or
denying access to services and facilities over which the agency exercises
control, we will henceforth analyze whether the agency action has sponsored,
controlled, or assisted a labor organization. In making this determination, we
will analyze whether the agency has, in the totality of circumstances,
interfered with employee freedom of choice by failing to maintain the
appropriate arms-length relationship with the labor organization involved. We
will be guided in this determination by considering the wording of section
7116(a)(3) as well as our own case law and precedent interpreting section
8(a)(2) of the NLRA.

This revised analysis does not alter the principle that where an
agency's employees are already represented by an exclusive representative, an
agency will nevertheless be obliged to grant access to a labor organization
that obtains equivalent status. DOD, Dependents School. Nor does it ignore the
special status of an exclusive representative. However, even if a rival labor
organization has not obtained equivalent status, an agency will be obliged to
grant access when to do otherwise would violate section 7116(a)(1) of the
Statute.

5. Application of the Analytical Framework to the Denial of Access in
this Case

The Authority previously determined that SSA would have violated
section 7116(a)(3) had it granted NTEU's request for permission to distribute
literature on Woodlawn's public areas. Social Security Administration, 45 FLRA
at 320. As a result, the Authority concluded that SSA had not, in denying NTEU
a permit, unlawfully assisted AFGE in violation of section 7116(a)(3). Id. at
321. We have concluded that an agency --in this case SSA -- is not obliged,
pursuant to section 7116(a)(3), to deny access to a labor organization lacking
equivalent status -- here NTEU -- unless the grant of such access would equate
to sponsorship, control, or assistance. We now evaluate whether SSA, in denying
NTEU access, unlawfully assisted AFGE as alleged in the complaint prosecuted by
the General Counsel.

In the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the denial of
access to NTEU did not amount to unlawful assistance to AFGE. First, we find
that SSA exercised control over the premises to which access was denied. We
recognize that if NTEU, a rival labor organization, had been granted a permit
to distribute literature on agency premises, AFGE's status as an incumbent may
have been subjected to potential challenges by NTEU. However, such a denial
would inure to the benefit of an incumbent whenever there is an exclusive
representative and, as we noted in the preceding section, there are certain
advantages that go with incumbency. We conclude that the denial of access to a
rival, in and of itself, does not equate to sponsorship, control, or assistance
to the incumbent.

Moreover, on examination of the record in this case, in light of the
totality of circumstances, there is no evidence that through this denial of
access SSA interfered with its employees' freedom of choice or failed to
maintain the proper arms-length relationship with AFGE. Although it is
conceivable that the denial of access could result in an incumbent becoming a
"company union," as one court noted in a related context, "[i]t is not the
potential for but the reality of domination that these statutes are intended to
prevent." Barthelemy v. Air Line Pilots Association, 897 F.2d 999, 1016 (9th
Cir. 1990). In scrutinizing the stipulations of the parties and examining the
record, we find no evidence that SSA's action unlawfully assisted AFGE. For
example, there is no evidence that AFGE is either controlled by SSA or is
anything other than an independent representative of the bargaining unit. Nor
is there evidence that the denial was viewed by the employees as indicative of
the agency favoring AFGE.

Having concluded that, in denying NTEU's permit request, SSA did not
sponsor, control, or assist AFGE, we dismiss the complaint as it relates to
section 7116(a)(3).

6. SSA's Claim That It Was Obliged to Deny NTEU a Permit Because
Granting the Request Would Have Violated Section 7116(a)(3)

As noted earlier, the Authority previously accepted SSA's claim that
had it granted the permit sought, the agency would have violated section
7116(a)(3) by improperly assisting NTEU. Social Security Administration, 45
FLRA at 320. In view of our conclusion in the preceding section, an analysis of
this affirmative defense is unnecessary for resolution of the section
7116(a)(3) charge. However, we note our determination in section 4, supra, that
an agency's denial of access to non-employee organizers of labor organizations,
lacking equivalent status, will be analyzed in light of the agency's
obligations under section 7116(a)(1).

7. The Constitutional Dilemma and the Facilities Question

The adoption of this revised framework is responsive to the D.C.
Circuit's concern that the Authority avoid an interpretation of the Statute
that raises constitutional implications for access cases arising under section
7116(a)(3). NTEU v. FLRA, 986 F.2d at 540. "[M]indful of the first amendment
implications," our determination in this case resolves the predicament faced by
SSA. Id. Under the Authority's previous interpretation of section 7116(a)(3),
SSA's compliance with its obligations under the Statute prompted a successful
district court constitutional challenge against the agency by NTEU. King II,
798 F. Supp. 780. Under the revised interpretation and framework, an agency
will no longer be automatically obliged to deny such access.
(18) Thus,
the Authority's interpretation and application of section 7116(a)(3) will not
require an agency to deny access and prompt constitutional access challenges,
like the one asserted in this case, that are premised upon an agency's
compliance with its obligations under the Statute. As such, and as directed by
the Court, our decision enables agencies to avoid a First Amendment challenge
in carrying out their obligations under the Statute. Id.

The analytical framework adopted and applied herein avoids an
interpretation of the Statute that leads to uncertain constitutional
implications. As a result, it is unnecessary to address the issue, raised by
the court in NTEU v. FLRA, of whether the sidewalks were the "facilities" of
SSA as this question relates to whether SSA was acting as GSA's building
manager rather than as an employer. Id. (19)

The General Counsel has alleged that, in the circumstances of this
case, the denial of access to NTEU violated section 7116(a)(1). In support of
this assertion, the General Counsel claims that employees have a right under
section 7116(a)(1) to receive information about other labor organizations from
non-employee organizers and that SSA has a discriminatory policy concerning
access to its premises.

The question of whether section 7116(a)(1) extends derivative section
7102 rights to non-employee organizers has not been previously decided by the
Authority.(20) In interpreting section
7116(a)(1), and thereby determining an agency's obligations under the Statute
vis-a-vis requests for access from non-employee organizers, we are guided by
germane decisions of the Supreme Court, discussed below, interpreting analogous
provisions of the NLRA.

1. Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA

The wording and purposes of section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA and section
7116(a)(1) of the Statute are virtually identical. Both prohibit interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under
the respective statutes. (21) In line with our earlier
determination concerning section 8(a)(2) and section 7116(a)(3) (Section
IV.B.4.b.(1), supra), we find that the similarities between these sections
justify our consideration of judicial and administrative precedent interpreting
section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA in construing section 7116(a)(1) of the
Statute.

In NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105 (1956) (Babcock), the
Supreme Court articulated an employer's obligations under section 8(a)(1) of
the NLRA when non-employee union organizers seek access to employees on company
property. The Court determined that "an employer may validly post his property
against non-employee distribution of union literature" if two conditions are
present. Id. at 112. First, the union must be able "through other available
channels of communication . . . to reach the employees with its message" and
second, "the employer's . . . order does not discriminate against the union by
allowing other distribution." Id. However, if either of these circumstances is
not met, "non-employee union organizers may have a limited right of access to
an employer's premises for the purpose of engaging in organization
solicitation." Sears, Roebuck, and Co. v. San Diego County District Council of
Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180, 204 (1978) (Sears, Roebuck).

In Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527, 532 (1992) (Lechmere), the
Court reaffirmed its earlier decision, noting that even though "the NLRA
confers rights only on employees, not on unions or their non-employee
organizers," Babcock had recognized that employees have the right to "learn the
advantages of self-organization from others." Id., quoting Babcock, 351 U.S. at
113. The Lechmere decision further noted that the non-employee union organizers
bear the burden of showing that the employer's access rules discriminate
against union solicitation or that no other reasonable means of communication
exist. Id. at 532, 535 (quoting Sears, Roebuck, 436 U.S. at 205).

In accord with Supreme Court precedent interpreting section 8(a)(1), we
conclude that under certain circumstances employees have a right, on agency
property, to "learn the advantages" of labor organizations from non-employee
organizers, pursuant to section 7116(a)(1) and section 7102. We recognize that
Babcock and its progeny have most often been applied in the context of an
organizational campaign where, unlike the case before us, the employees being
solicited are not already represented by a labor organization. However, as
noted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, even where
the Babcock test does not precisely fit a set of facts, the principles stated
in that case "must be an important starting point for analysis of any
solicitation activity by non-employees." Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v.
NLRB, 692 F.2d 1115, 1124-25 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 914
(1983).

We therefore adopt the Babcock analytical framework as our starting
point in section 7116(a)(1) cases where non-employee labor organizers are
denied access to agency premises. In performing this analysis, we will consider
whether the agency has a non-discriminatory distribution policy and whether
there are other reasonable means available to the labor organization for
communicating its message to employees. If the General Counsel establishes
either that an agency maintains a discriminatory policy, or, irrespective of
the agency's access policy, that there are no other reasonable methods of
communicating with the employees concerned, we will find that the agency has,
in denying access to the non-employee organizers, violated section 7116(a)(1)
of the Statute.

a. Non-Discriminatory Policy Concerning Solicitation

The fact that an employer has banned non-employee union solicitation,
but allowed other outsiders access to its premises, does not automatically lead
to the conclusion that the employer violated the non-discrimination provision
set out in Babcock. To the contrary, the NLRB and the United States Courts of
Appeals, in reviewing determinations of the Board, have clarified the
application of the Babcock non-discrimination rule in several respects. Because
we have noted the similarity between section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA and section
7116(a)(1) of the Statute and adopted the Babcock analytical framework, we
briefly review relevant decisions of the NLRB and examine how the Babcock
non-discrimination rule has been analyzed and fashioned on review in the
courts.

The NLRB has long recognized "that an employer does not violate Sec.
8(a)(1) by permitting a small number of isolated beneficent acts' as narrow
exceptions to a no-solicitation rule." Hammary Mfg. Corp., 265 NLRB 57 n.4
(1982) (Hammary) (citing Serv-Air, Inc., 175 NLRB 801 (1969)). In this regard,
"rather than finding an exception for charities to be a per se violation of the
Act, the Board has evaluated the quantum of . . . incidents' involved to
determine whether unlawful discrimination has occurred." Id. Additionally, the
Board permits an employer to deny non-employee organizers access to its
premises while permitting other solicitations that are integrally related to
the employer's business functions and purposes. Rochester General Hospital, 234
NLRB 253 (1978). However, these two exceptions aside, the Board has interpreted
and applied the Babcock non-discrimination rule to find a violation of section
8(a)(1) where an employer denies activity by non-employee organizers that it
grants to others. See, e.g., Be-Lo Stores, 318 NLRB 1 (1995) (finding violation
where employer enforced no-solicitation rule to deny picketing, but permitted
various other religious, political, and charitable organizations to distribute
literature and solicit on its premises).

The NLRB's interpretation and application of Babcock's
non-discrimination rule has been reviewed by several United States Courts of
Appeals. In some instances, the Board's rule has been cited with approval on
review and and its application affirmed. See Lucile Salter Packard Children's
Hospital at Standford v. NLRB, 97 F.3d 583, 587-89 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (applying
the Board's exceptions to the Babcock non-discrimination rule and agreeing with
the Board's finding that 8(a)(1) was violated where an employer's policy
restricting solicitation had been inconsistently exercised to prevent
non-employee union organizers access, while permitting similar access to
various commercial solicitors). On the other hand, in related factual contexts,
Board orders have not been enforced when the courts have more narrowly
restricted the activities and entities against which discrimination can be
measured. See Guardian Industries Corp. v. NLRB, 49 F.3d 317, 321-22 (7th Cir.
1995), (rejecting NLRB's finding of an 8(a)(1) violation premised upon an
employer's refusal to permit the posting of union notices on the firm's
bulletin board, while allowing swap-and-shop notices); NLRB v. Southern
Maryland Hospital Center, 916 F.2d 932, 937-38 (4th Cir. 1990), (refusing to
enforce the Board's finding that hospital discriminatorily enforced its
no-solicitation policy by allowing numerous friends and relatives of hospital
employees into the cafeteria while keeping union organizers out).
(22)

The principles articulated in the above decisions suggest that "[b]y
inviting the public to use an area of its property, the employer does not
surrender its right to control the uses to which that area is put." Baptist
Medical System v. NLRB, 876 F.2d 661, 664 (8th Cir. 1989). Indeed, the Supreme
Court has, in a related, constitutional context, recognized the difference
between labor organizations and other entities vis-a-vis access to an
employer's facilities. Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators'
Association, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (Perry). In Perry, the Court pointed out that
even if a school district had created a limited public forum by allowing access
to the Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, YMCA, and other organizations that engage in
activities of interest and educational relevance to students, the school
district would not necessarily, as a consequence, have opened its premises to a
labor organization which is concerned with terms and conditions of employment.
Id. at 48.

b. Availability of Other Means of Communication

The ability of a labor organization to obtain access to employees
through other methods of communication has previously been analyzed by both the
ASLMR and the Authority in evaluating cases arising under section 19(a)(3) of
the Order and section 7116(a)(3) of the Statute, respectively. See Natick, 3
A/SLMR at 196; Social Security Administration, 45 FLRA at 320; Barksdale Air
Force Base, 45 FLRA at 665. In view of our adoption of the Babcock analytical
framework for analyzing cases arising under the Statute, we will apply that
precedent, and, where appropriate, private sector precedent, in analyzing this
issue in cases arising under section 7116(a)(1). (23)

3. Application of the Analytical Framework to this Case

The Authority previously determined that section 7116(a)(3) "required
SSA to treat NTEU differently from other organizations." Social Security
Administration, 45 FLRA at 323. As a result, in denying NTEU the permit
request, the Authority concluded that SSA did not violate section 7116(a)(1).
Having revised our view of an agency's obligations under section 7116(a)(3), we
now reconsider our earlier determination concerning whether SSA violated
section 7116(a)(1).

a. SSA's Solicitation Policy

There is no doubt that SSA has differentiated among the organizations
that it has allowed to solicit on its Woodlawn premises. The record reflects
that although NTEU, a labor organization, was denied access to the Agency's
premises, beneficent organizations such as the Disabled American Veterans,
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and the American
Legion have been granted occasional access to the Agency's premises. However,
the record is silent as to whether any other organizations have sought, been
granted, or been denied access to SSA's premises.

Applying the principles set out in the NLRB's Hammary decision, we are
unable to conclude, based upon the stipulated record in this case, that SSA has
violated the Babcock nondiscrimination rule. The stipulations reflect that
between November 1989 and April 1991, SSA granted permits to four charitable
and civic organizations to distribute various information and materials.
However, it is not clear, from stipulations before us, whether other entities
have been denied permits or, alternatively, whether every organization that
sought a permit from SSA has been granted access. (24) Moreover, the parties' arguments
do not address whether the number of permits granted during the time period
have been isolated and limited to a small number of beneficent organizations,
as set out in the Board's Hammary exception. As a result, we do not find that
SSA's denial of access to NTEU, which occurred during the same time period that
it granted occasional access to charitable organizations, violated the Babcock
non-discrimination rule. (25)

In reaching this conclusion, we have considered that NTEU is being
treated differently than AFGE -- the incumbent and exclusive representative of
the employees of SSA. However, for the purposes of applying the Babcock
discrimination principle in determining whether an agency has violated section
7116(a)(1) of the Statute, we do not believe that the access afforded an
incumbent labor organization, which, as noted earlier has access to the
employer's premises because of its status as the exclusive representative, is
relevant or properly compared to the access afforded to other labor
organizations.

b. Availability of Other Means of Communicating with the Employees

Given our finding, in the preceding section, that SSA's policy
concerning solicitation did not violate section 7116(a)(1), we turn to the
issue of whether there were other means of communicating with the employees
that were available to NTEU. In this regard, we note that the Authority
previously determined, in the context of evaluating the alleged section
7116(a)(3) violation, that NTEU had failed to demonstrate "that SSA's Woodlawn
employees are inaccessible outside the Woodlawn premises." Social Security
Administration, 45 FLRA at 320. We have been presented with no evidence that
would lead us to alter this conclusion on remand, nor are we aware of any
reason why we should reach a different conclusion because this issue is now
being considered under section 7116(a)(1).

Accordingly, we conclude that SSA did not violate section 7116(a)(1) of
the Statute by discriminating against NTEU while permitting other solicitation
on its premises.

V. Order

The complaint in this case is dismissed.

Member Wasserman, concurring:

Although I agree with the ultimate disposition of the allegations in
this case, I differ from my colleagues with regard to the analytic basis for
concluding that the Respondent did not violate the Statute by denying access to
non-employee representatives of NTEU.

I first address the section 7116(a)(3) aspect of this case. For nearly
25 years, an agency's obligation to provide access to non-employees acting on
behalf of a labor organization has been determined by the statement of law set
forth in Department of the Army, U.S. Army Natick Laboratories, Natick, Mass.,
3 A/SLMR 194 (1973) (Natick): an agency may not furnish the use of its services
and facilities to a rival labor organization that lacks equivalent status.
Acceptance of this principle appears to have been universal. See, e.g.,
National Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, 986 F.2d 537, 540 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
("This court has interpreted 7116(a)(3) as requiring an agency to exclude a
union without status equivalent to that of the incumbent union . . . from its
premises' or its facilities.'"); American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL-CIO v. FLRA, 840 F.2d 947, 950 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ("An extended line of
precedents under 7116(a)(3) and its predecessor establish that an agency
commits an unfair labor practice if it provides access to or use of its
facilities to a union without equivalent status.'"); American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. FLRA, 793 F.2d 333, 337 n.9 (referring to this
doctrine as "settled caselaw"); U.S. Department of the Air Force, Barksdale Air
Force Base, Bossier City, Louisiana and NFFE, Local 1953, 45 FLRA 659 (1992)
(parties conceded the applicability of Natick). (1)Indeed, no party to this proceeding
explicitly argues that we should overrule or modify Natick.

Were we writing on a clean slate, I might agree that the interpretation
of section 7116(a)(3) reached by my colleagues today is an appropriate reading
of the Statute. However, as shown by the cases cited above, there has in fact
been a great deal written on the subject (although I agree with my colleagues
that Natick has generally simply been adhered to and has not been adequately
explained). I see no reason at this point to erase this slate. Rather, in my
view, once the phrase "customary and routine services and facilities" is
defined, the Natick doctrine offers the Federal labor-management community a
degree of certainty and an ease of application. In contrast, the interpretation
reached by the majority replaces a bright-line rule thereby creating
uncertainty that will, I fear, encourage parties to challenge the limits of the
new doctrine. Natick also recognizes, as does the only legislative history
concerning this provision (see majority opinion, slip op. at 9), that the
intent of section 7116(a)(3) was to ensure agency neutrality during organizing
campaigns. In my view, as discussed more fully below, section 7116(a)(3) has
limited, if any, applicability to an agency's conduct with regard to the
exclusive representative of its employees outside the election context. For
this reason, I find the statutory provision regulating the far more volatile
labor relations environment of the private sector, and precedent thereunder, to
be of limited value when determining how we should interpret section
7116(a)(3).

The conclusion that I reach today -- that equivalent status should
continue to be the fulcrum on which the Authority decides whether an agency is
obligated to provide access under section 7116(a)(3) -- is grounded in my view
that the Statute gives a special status to an exclusive representative and is
protective of that status. I find evidence of this status in the language of
section 7101 of the Statute, particularly in its concurrent focus on both the
value of collective bargaining and the mandate that the Statute be interpreted
consistent with the requirement for an effective and efficient Government. In
this light, I read section 7116(a)(3), and its invocation of "equivalent
status," as governing an agency's actions when there is no exclusive
representative or when the incumbent union has been properly challenged under
the procedures set out in section 7111. In those circumstances, an agency may
neither sponsor, control or assist a favorite union nor fail to furnish
equivalent services and facilities to all labor organizations that seek to
represent its employees. Thus, I agree with my colleagues that section
7116(a)(3) does not insulate the exclusive representative from all challenges
by rival unions. However, incumbency has its rewards. For example, a union may
obtain a right of access to agency property through negotiations or past
practice. See, e.g., Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base,
Illinois, 34 FLRA 1129, 1136 (1990); Department of Labor, Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs, Branch of Special Claims, 11 FLRA 77 (1983). In view of
the stability and repose intended by the Statute, I believe that an agency
should not be concerned that denial of access or other services to a rival
union without equivalent status will be interpreted as providing assistance to
an incumbent exclusive representative.

In this case, I conclude that the Respondent did not violate section
7116(a)(3) by denying NTEU access to the grounds of the Woodlawn complex
because I would not find that such access constitutes the furnishing of either
services or facilities. In this regard, I find it significant that the area in
question is a large exterior space, to which the public generally has
unrestricted access. Its perimeter is unfenced and unguarded; busses enter on
regularly scheduled routes; and non-employees routinely stroll or congregate on
its sidewalks, which are considered "public areas" for purposes of applicable
Federal regulations. Social Security Administration and National Treasury
Employees Union, 45 FLRA 303, 305 (1992). Aside from providing permits for the
distribution of literature, there is no record evidence that the Respondent in
fact furnishes any services or facilities in the normal sense of those terms to
members of the public who come onto its grounds. Moreover, given the nominal
nature of the permit -- which, prior to this dispute, apparently had never been
denied -- I would not find that the grant of a permit is equivalent to the
furnishing of services or facilities within the meaning of section 7116(a)(3).
Thus, as I would not find that access to the exterior grounds of the Woodlawn
complex involves the furnishing of "customary and routine services and
facilities" and I see no other basis on which to conclude that the Respondent
sponsored, controlled or otherwise assisted AFGE, I conclude that the
Respondent did not violate section 7116(a)(3), as alleged, even though NTEU did
not have equivalent status. Similarly, it would not have violated that
provision had it granted the access. (2)

With regard to the Section 7116(a)(1) allegation, I rely again on the
public nature of the Woodlawn grounds where, according to the record before us,
access was routinely granted to all, including others who wished to distribute
materials. Consistent with the views expressed above, I would find that where
an agency has opened its premises to such indiscriminate use, it cannot bar a
union from using those premises for the same purposes. Cf. Perry Education
Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (where a governmental
entity has not opened its facilities to indiscriminate use by the general
public, it may place restrictions on its use for expressive activity). Again, I
do not find private sector precedent helpful in determining the scope of
permitted access. Instead, due to the fact that employers covered by the
Statute are all Governmental entities, I believe that, in addition to examining
whether an agency's actions have interfered with, restrained, or coerced any
employee in the exercise of a right guaranteed by the Statute, we must be
guided by First Amendment principles in such cases. See, for example, Cornelius
v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 799-806
(1984). Accordingly, NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105 (1956) and
its progeny, including Hammary Mfg. Corp., 265 NLRB 57 (1982), are instructive,
but not necessarily dispositive in determining the circumstances in which an
agency may lawfully regulate speech or other expressive activity.

In light of the foregoing and in the absence of other factors, I would
find that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) by denying access to NTEU.
Thus, based on a record that suggests that the Respondent opened its exterior
grounds to everyone and to all types of communication, the Respondent
interfered with its employees' rights under section 7116(a)(1) by foreclosing
their ability also to hear NTEU's message at that location. However, I agree
with my colleagues that it would not be appropriate to find a violation in the
circumstances of this case. See note 25, above. Thus, even though I would not
change the previous interpretation of section 7116(a)(3), the Respondent could
not necessarily have foreseen my view of what constitutes the furnishing of
services and facilities or my position regarding the dictates of section
7116(a)(1). Accordingly, I believe that it would be inequitable to find that
the Respondent violated the Statute.

FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)

Authority's Footnotes Follow:

1. The separate
concurring opinion of Member Wasserman is set forth at the end of this
decision.

2. Member
Armendariz, who previously participated in Social Security Administration, has
reconsidered the analysis and conclusion reached in the Authority's earlier
decision in light of the court's remand in NTEU v. FLRA and the constitutional
concerns raised therein, the arguments of the parties, and the precedent cited
in this decision. In light of these considerations and on further examination,
he supports the analytical framework and decision in this case.

3. A rival
union obtains "equivalent status" with an incumbent union when a petition for
election is properly filed with the Authority and the appropriate Authority
Regional Director determines that there has been a prima facie showing of
interest. See U.S. Department of Defense, Dependents School, Panama Region and
Education Association of Panama and Panama Canal Federation of Teachers, Local
29, 44 FLRA 419, 425-26 (1992) (DOD, Dependents School). It is undisputed that
NTEU had not achieved equivalent status at the time of the permit request.

4. After the
court's remand, the Authority, in turn, remanded the case to the Washington
Regional Office for further proceedings. 47 FLRA 1376 (1993). On remand, the
parties entered into a stipulation of facts and the General Counsel, NTEU, and
AFGE filed briefs. Subsequently, the Authority published a Notice of Oral
Argument and provided interested parties the opportunity to submit amicus
curiae briefs. 61 Fed. Reg. 25871 (1996). All parties submitted briefs and
participated in the oral argument. One labor organization, the Laborers'
International Union of North America, submitted a brief as amicus curiae.

5. Section
19(a)(3) of the Order evolved from section 3.2(a)(3) of the Code of Fair Labor
Practices, 3 C.F.R. 1959-63.

6. Section 23
of the Order required agencies to take appropriate steps to implement the
Order, including developing policies concerning the use of agency facilities by
labor organizations.

7. At the time
of the issuance of the Order, the phrase "equivalent status" was not
specifically defined.

8. Under section
4 of the Order, the FLRC was authorized, inter alia, to act on appeals from
decisions of the ASLMR.

9. In one case,
the Authority left undisturbed the unchallenged finding of an ALJ that an
agency committed a ULP when it permitted a rival union, lacking equivalent
status, access to a "public use area" near some vending machines outside the
employee cafeteria. Gallup Indian Medical Center, Gallup, New Mexico and
National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1749 and Laborer's
International Union of North America, Navajo Area Health Care Employees, Local
Union 1376, 44 FLRA 217 (1992) (Gallup Indian Medical Center).

10. On the
other hand, in the case now before us, where SSA, the employing agency, rather
than GSA had control of the permit process, the Authority ruled that the agency
properly denied access to the rival union lacking equivalent status. Social
Sec. Admin., 45 FLRA at 318.

11. The issue
in AFGE I was whether the agency was obliged to prevent a rival union from
using GSA-controlled areas contiguous to the agency's premises. 793 F.2d at
334. In order to resolve this issue, the Court remanded to the Authority the
question of whether the agency or GSA controlled the use of the public areas.
Id. at 338. On remand, the Authority determined that GSA had "exclusive
jurisdiction . . . to grant permits for the use of [the] public space" and that
the agency did not have control over the public areas in question. HHS, 24 FLRA
at 676. The Authority further found that it had not been established that the
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) had influenced GSA's control over
the public spaces in question and that in the absence of control or influence,
HCFA had no affirmative duty to persuade GSA to deny NTEU access to the public
space. Id. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the Authority, noting that the FPMRs "did
not give HCFA authority to exclude the rival union's representatives from the
adjacent public areas" and that "HCFA did not in fact exercise control over the
areas." American Federation of Government Employees v. FLRA, 840 F.2d 947, 949
(D.C. Cir. 1988) (AFGE II).

12. Thus, we
disagree with our concurring colleagues's conclusion that equivalent status
should "be the fulcrum" on which access determinations are made because, in his
view, a purpose of section 7116(a)(3) is to protect the status of an incumbent.
In our view, section 7116(a)(3) determinations hinge on sponsorship, control,
or assistance -- not equivalent status. Although the equivalent status, or lack
thereof is clearly a factor to be considered in analyzing whether the grant or
denial of access sponsors, controls, or assists, see, e.g., note 13 and section
IV.B.4.b.(2), infra, we disagree that this should, in every instance in and of
itself, be determinative of whether the Statute has been violated. In accord
with the D.C. Circuit, we do not believe that section "7116(a)(3) is intended
'to insulate the exclusive representative from challenges by rival unions.'"
AFGE II, 840 F.2d at 955.

13. On the
other hand, the adoption of the revised framework described herein should not
be construed as altering an agency's obligations to a rival union once the
rival has obtained "equivalent status." See DOD, Dependents School, 44 FLRA
419.

14. Moreover,
even upon obtaining equivalent status, a rival is not entitled to benefits that
an incumbent labor organization has obtained through collective bargaining.
U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Air Defense
Center and Fort Bliss, Texas and NFFE, Local 2068 and NAGE, Local R14-89, 29
FLRA 362, 365-66 (1987).

15. Thus we do
not share our concurring colleague's view that our revised framework will cause
agencies to be concerned that the denial of access to a rival lacking
equivalent status will lead to findings that they have violated the Statute.
While recognizing that a fact-based analysis inevitably will create some degree
of uncertainty not present under the Natick per se approach, we believe that
the framework we adopt today will enable agencies to continue established
relationships without such apprehensions.

16. For
reasons expressed in section C, infra, the question of other means of
communicating with employees will henceforth be examined in the context of
determining allegations under section 7116(a)(1).

17. Similarly,
the proviso's requirement that services and facilities be "furnished on an
impartial basis" will also serve as a standard when an agency denies access to
one labor organization that it has granted to another. In this regard, we would
consider the NLRB's and judicial interpretations of section 8(a)(2) of the
NLRA. See Davis Supermarkets, Inc., 306 NLRB 426, n.3 (1992), aff'd sub nom.
Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. NLRB, 2 F.3d 1162, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 1993), cert.
denied, 114 S. Ct. 1368 (1994); River Manor Health Facility, 224 NLRB 227, 236
(1976).

18. Moreover
an agency will be required to grant access if denial would violate section
7116(a)(1). See section 4, supra.

19. We
recognize that resolution of the facilities question, either in the manner
suggested by the court, or by our concurring colleague, could arguably be a
limited basis upon which to adjudicate this case. However, where the agency
itself (rather than GSA) controls and owns the premises to which access is
sought, the agency's status as a building manager would not be dispositive, and
an agency would find itself in the same precarious position that faced SSA
here. Similarly, reliance upon the fact that this case involves external
sidewalks does not address what rule would apply in a case involving internal
agency premises.

20. In this
case, as noted earlier herein, rather than decide this issue the Authority
assumed that any derivative right of access to agency premises possessed by
non-employee organizers was overcome by the requirement of section 7116(a)(3)
that such access be denied to a labor organization lacking equivalent status.
Social Security Administration, 45 FLRA at 324.